Danny Tommo Case Moves Toward Crown Court Trial as Tommy Robinson Backs Legal Challenge

PORTSMOUTH — The criminal case against anti-migration activist Daniel Thomas, better known as Danny Tommo, is moving toward a Crown Court trial amid growing political attention, public demonstrations and claims from supporters that the prosecution raises wider questions about protest, policing and civil liberties.

Thomas, 37, remains in custody after Judge James Newton-Price KC refused a bail application at Portsmouth Crown Court on September 29. He is accused of criminal damage following an incident involving an inflatable boat in the English Channel and separately faces an allegation concerning access to his mobile phone.

Thomas denies both charges.

A provisional trial date has been set for March 1, 2027, while his next Crown Court appearance is scheduled for November 12, 2026.

The case has attracted additional attention because Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, better known as Tommy Robinson, has publicly supported Thomas and attended an earlier hearing.

Robinson has described the treatment of Thomas as unjust and has discussed arguments that he believes should form part of the challenge to the prosecution.

However, Robinson’s public commentary should be distinguished from the formal legal case being conducted by Thomas’s lawyers.

What is Thomas accused of?

The principal allegation relates to an incident in the English Channel on September 22.

Prosecutors allege that Thomas damaged an inflatable boat with a knife while an emergency responder was aboard it. Video footage circulated online following the incident and has subsequently become a major part of public discussion surrounding the case.

Thomas has pleaded not guilty to criminal damage.

At his initial hearing, the prosecution outlined its version of events, including allegations that Thomas approached an adrift vessel and damaged it after a rescue worker boarded.

Those remain allegations.

The existence of video footage does not eliminate the need for the court to determine the legal questions surrounding the incident, including the precise circumstances, the evidence establishing criminal damage and any arguments raised by the defence.

Thomas elected to have the criminal-damage case tried before a Crown Court jury rather than resolved in the magistrates’ court.

The dispute over Thomas’s phone

A second and legally distinct issue concerns Thomas’s mobile phone.

Police charged him with failing to disclose the PIN to the device under Section 53 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.

Thomas has denied that allegation as well.

The charge has attracted particular attention among Thomas’s supporters because it raises questions about the circumstances under which investigators can legally compel access to encrypted or protected electronic information.

However, the broader political debate about digital privacy should not be confused with the narrower issue the court will eventually determine: whether Thomas was lawfully required to provide the information and whether he committed the offence alleged by prosecutors.

Those questions will depend on evidence and the relevant statutory requirements.

What is the defence arguing?

At the September 29 hearing, defence counsel Simon Pentol KC strongly challenged the way the case has been characterised.

Pentol described the prosecution as “politically charged and fundamentally flawed.”

He emphasised that Thomas faces a criminal-damage charge and an allegation concerning compliance with a notice relating to his phone. He also stressed that Thomas has not been charged with widespread public disorder.

That distinction is significant.

Thomas is the founder of Patriot Platform and has become associated with increasingly visible anti-migration demonstrations. His political activities have therefore become part of the public conversation surrounding his prosecution.

But the court is not conducting a general trial of Thomas’s political activism.

It is considering specific criminal allegations.

The prosecution will ultimately have to prove those allegations according to the normal criminal standard, while the defence will be entitled to challenge the evidence and advance arguments on Thomas’s behalf.

Tommy Robinson enters the controversy

Robinson attended Thomas’s earlier appearance at Basingstoke Magistrates’ Court, sitting in the public gallery as proceedings unfolded.

After Thomas was initially refused bail, Robinson publicly criticised the decision and said Thomas’s legal team would prepare to challenge his continued detention.

Robinson has also discussed arguments surrounding the alleged damage to the boat, the location and circumstances of the Channel encounter and the dispute over Thomas’s mobile phone.

Those comments have been presented by some supporters as revealing a coordinated legal strategy.

That description requires caution.

Robinson is a political activist and supporter of Thomas, not the barrister conducting Thomas’s defence. Statements he makes about the case represent his own account and interpretation unless independently confirmed by Thomas’s legal representatives.

The clearest indication of the formal defence position comes from what Thomas’s counsel has actually argued in court.

Why was bail refused?

Thomas’s defence made another application for bail at Portsmouth Crown Court.

Judge Newton-Price refused it and remanded Thomas in custody.

According to reporting from the hearing, the judge specifically indicated that he was setting political motivations aside when reaching his decision.

Thomas appeared via video link from HMP Winchester during the hearing, wearing a grey T-shirt and holding a copy of the Holy Bible.

The refusal of bail does not mean Thomas has been found guilty.

Pre-trial detention and criminal conviction are legally different matters. Thomas continues to benefit from the presumption of innocence, and his guilt or innocence on the charges remains to be determined.

The court has also set a custody time limit of March 25, according to reporting of the judge’s remarks.

A case increasingly surrounded by politics

The prosecution is unfolding against an already heated national argument over irregular migration across the Channel.

Thomas has organised anti-migration demonstrations through Patriot Platform. Robinson has also been one of Britain’s most prominent figures in anti-migration and anti-Islam activism.

Supporters of Thomas gathered outside court, and hundreds had previously demonstrated outside a police investigation centre in Basingstoke while he was being held.

At the same time, government figures have criticised some recent anti-migration demonstrations.

Communities Secretary Angela Rayner, for example, has argued that demonstrations involving masked participants and intimidating behaviour should be distinguished from legitimate peaceful protest.

Those competing interpretations illustrate why Thomas’s prosecution has acquired political significance beyond the charges themselves.

Supporters see questions about policing, bail, protest rights and state power. Critics focus on the conduct alleged in the Channel and the increasingly confrontational nature of some anti-migration activism.

Neither political narrative determines the criminal case.

What happens next?

Thomas’s next scheduled appearance at Portsmouth Crown Court is November 12. The court has established deadlines for the service of evidence, and his trial is provisionally scheduled to begin on March 1, 2027.

The coming months should provide a clearer picture of the evidence prosecutors intend to rely upon and the arguments Thomas’s lawyers will use to challenge it.

Questions surrounding the value and ownership of the allegedly damaged vessel may also matter. At an earlier stage, the court heard that the value of the damage was not yet known to be above or below £5,000 because the boat had been returned to France.

That could have implications for how the criminal-damage allegation is ultimately treated.

For now, however, some of the dramatic language surrounding the case goes further than the established facts.

There has been no courtroom finding that Thomas is being prosecuted because of his political beliefs, just as there has been no finding that the charges against him are proved.

Robinson and other supporters are entitled to argue that the case raises concerns about civil liberties or policing. Prosecutors are equally entitled to bring allegations they believe are supported by sufficient evidence.

The Crown Court will ultimately have to separate those competing political narratives from the legal questions before it.

Thomas remains in custody, denies the charges, and is awaiting the next stage of proceedings.

Whether the case ultimately becomes a landmark dispute over civil liberties — as some supporters suggest — or remains principally a prosecution concerning alleged criminal damage and access to a mobile phone will depend on what the evidence establishes when it is tested in court.